quote:You mean she can buy back her family, because in My Dream America wasteful government-sponsored foster care has been completely privatized!

Why stop there? Let's combine the idea with Rothbard's sociopathy for the ultimate in market efficiency.

She can give her children up to me for foster care (her desperation sets the market value of those kids really low). I, then, will rent out her children (and any other fosters I can find) as child laborers. I can undercut adult labor, put more families out of jobs, buy their children from them, and cycle it endlessly upward into more and more wealth. With good timing, a little luck, and enough starting capital, I could make a localized monopoly on children.

I shed a single, eagle-shaped tear as I imagine what a glorious market-controlled world we could live in.

quote:ey guys, do as the truck drivers syndicate does in Argentina. Unionize up and picket the [bleep] out of their supply access roads. Works every time. I know I criticize our mafia-like unions and their extremely violent and thuggish methods, but you can't deny their effectiveness, and in Walmart's case I think it's more than justified. Just gather a large amount of people, burn some tires, and wait. Make sure to threaten the temporarily hired seasonal workers and anyone who tries to go to work, block them, threaten them with sticks if they try to enter (sadly, I'm 100% serious, this is the only way to actually picket successfully). Enjoy a good barbecue while you're at it.

Also from SA, this is something unironic that I completely agree with, American unions need to grow a pair; the problem of course is the militerized police who'll tear gas the protesters. Its sad how America despite being a first world democracy is little different from a third world dictatorship in this regard (echoing another poster there).
IP: Logged |

posted November 23, 201204:31 PM
It seems to me that there is absolutely nothing Third-World-esque about police who prevent an armed crowd from beating workers who are trying to do their jobs.
Posts: 37002 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |

Blayne Bradley
unregistered

posted November 23, 201204:46 PM
There is no other recourse however to resolve the issue of workers rights, the corporations do everything in their power to prevent unionization; people who bring it up are blacklisted and fired on the spot. If the corporation can hire scabs and starve out the unionizers how are they supposed to effectively bargain for their rights? The scabs need to be prevented from working is absolute requirement in a system where the government takes the side of the corporations against the workers.
IP: Logged |

quote:There is no other recourse however to resolve the issue of workers rights

Now there's an interesting argument. Have you read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"?

In a somewhat similar vein, one might say that there is no recourse other than blowing up clinics to resolve the issue of fetus rights; no recourse other than lynching to resolve the issue of white people's rights; no recourse other than terrorism to resolve the issue of Islamic rights...

In short, what you are actually saying is that you think the issue of workers' rights is so important that you're willing to resort to violence to get your way, or at any rate you're willing to have other people resort to violence for you. Very well, I'm not going to say that violence is always wrong, but then how can you complain if the other side also uses violence? "It's a great pity the other side has more people with guns and truncheons than we do". It sure is! That's the problem with resorting to violence, somehow it doesn't actually respect the justice of anyone's cause.

Your real problem with the American police is that they're not on your side, and they are able to beat up the people who are. If they were using tear gas on protesters outside an abortion clinic you'd be full of the rule of law and the need for peaceful protesting, not riots.

Additionally, the excuse that Canadian Walmart has to make concessions to operate in Quebec is just ridiculous. It's like saying that the American Nazi party isn't allowed to use stormtroopers in the streets, so it's ok to vote for them even though of course you don't support those evil brownshirts in Germany. If you think Walmart is so evil that violence is justified, then grow a dang pair and boycott the bastards; your actual money is going to the same people you affect to hate so much.
Posts: 10594 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |

posted November 23, 201205:19 PM
That situation is because the bakery in question was already bankrupt and wasn't honoring pension promises.

The other problem with labour laws is that there not always enforced, for instance in know this one person who had his hands burned because Walmart didn't provide gloves which under OHSA they are supposed to, but whistleblowers are fired and blacklisted.

Those laws are also a result of the work of unions who organized and helped elect politicians (during the New Deal era specifically comes to mind) so it isn't correct to say unions are unneeded. There's a strong correlation with a lower standard of living in Right to Work states where unions are relatively powerless compared to states with strong unions.

posted November 23, 201205:56 PM
My understanding was that much of what Walmart is accused of doing is a violation of the law and in some cases, people have been able to sue Walmart for lost wages and stuff over the retaliations. However, ability to do that is limited to people who don't live paycheck to paycheck.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by scholarette: My understanding was that much of what Walmart is accused of doing is a violation of the law and in some cases, people have been able to sue Walmart for lost wages and stuff over the retaliations. However, ability to do that is limited to people who don't live paycheck to paycheck.

Some rich, connected guy should get a job at Walmart so as to secretly film how bad it is for employees and then sue the crap out of them.

quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: That situation is because the bakery in question was already bankrupt and wasn't honoring pension promises.

The other problem with labour laws is that there not always enforced, for instance in know this one person who had his hands burned because Walmart didn't provide gloves which under OHSA they are supposed to, but whistleblowers are fired and blacklisted.

Those laws are also a result of the work of unions who organized and helped elect politicians (during the New Deal era specifically comes to mind) so it isn't correct to say unions are unneeded. There's a strong correlation with a lower standard of living in Right to Work states where unions are relatively powerless compared to states with strong unions.

I'm sure Lyrhawn probably has a lot to add to the topic.

I guess I just have a different personal experience. I am bitter about the powerless teacher union I am in, that still takes $30 a pay check, $28 if I am not in the union.

I worked at a hotel without a union about 10 years ago. I was a whistle blower. Called the labor board anonymously, and they fixed the problem. Cost the local corporation thousands in past wages.
Posts: 3132 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:There's a strong correlation with a lower standard of living in Right to Work states where unions are relatively powerless compared to states with strong unions.

Do you have data to back up this claim?
Posts: 557 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |

Blayne Bradley
unregistered

posted November 23, 201208:09 PM

quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:

quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:There's a strong correlation with a lower standard of living in Right to Work states where unions are relatively powerless compared to states with strong unions.

Do you have data to back up this claim?

Yup. Not that you ever researched this yourself.

quote:But now take a look at the differences from another angle. There is a significant difference in median family incomes in states that are RTW versus those that are not. Using a three-years-average median family income for 2009 to 2009, RTW states have a median family income of $46,919, non RTW it is $53,418, a difference of $6,499 or 13.9 percent per year. Testing for the impact of RTW on median family incomes, the relationship is -0.4. This means there is statistical evidence that RTW is associated with lower incomes: RTW depresses wages. Finally, the percentage of the state's work force unionized demonstrates a positive 0.47 correlation with incomes: Unions increase household incomes.

posted November 23, 201211:25 PM
Blayne, you need to speak more precisely.

Do you see how your data doesnt actually back up the claim that you made? You left a key term ("standard of living") undefined, and then when challenged you decided that the obvious definition was median family income.

But that's total hogwash. Nevermind some of the other shoddy science involved in that quote, this one is big enough to make the entire quote utterly irrelevant.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |

posted November 24, 201212:08 AM
I looked up "standard of living" as I wasn't sure what Dan's objection was and income is a part of it, but it's a huge list...

quote:Standard of living refers to the level of wealth, comfort, material goods and necessities available to a certain socioeconomic class in a certain geographic area. The standard of living includes factors such as income, quality and availability of employment, class disparity, poverty rate, quality and affordability of housing, hours of work required to purchase necessities, gross domestic product, inflation rate, number of vacation days per year, affordable (or free) access to quality healthcare, quality and availability of education, life expectancy, incidence of disease, cost of goods and services, infrastructure, national economic growth, economic and political stability, political and religious freedom, environmental quality, climate and safety. The standard of living is closely related to quality of life.[1]

So while I get that "household income" ≠ "standard of living" in and of itself, I'd have to say (as long as Blayne's source holds water and I'm not commenting either way on that one) that the general idea he is putting out is valid.

I cut my teeth politically on Atlas Shrugged and had a lot of strong opinions about how the government was crushing poor business, the back bone of the nation, as a young man. But as I have grown up I have seen the major corporations laying off thousands of workers, jacking their prices and reporting record profits, with multi million dollar bonus for CEOs, and I've got to say that the working class joe needs an avenue to protect their interests and that's what unions do. Of course unions can also do a lot of harm...but what coin only has one side?
Posts: 5467 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |

posted November 24, 201207:59 AM
I'm not denying that median income is a factor re: standard of living. But taken in isolation it's worse than meaningless.

At bare minimum, Blayne would need to supply median income compared to cost of living. Even then he'd be neglecting too much, but there would at least be some context given to the income figures. Without it, the incomes are totally useless.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |

posted November 24, 201208:04 AM
Also the cognitive dissonance on display in this quote is pretty funny.

quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Walmart is so terrible, I hope this succeeds and they unionize. . . . I don't make enough money to shop anywhere else D:

Edit: just to spell it out... On some level, you clearly recognize the immense value that Walmart provides (especially to the poor and disadvantaged!), yet you're also able to ignore that fact and demonize the very thing that is improving your life.

posted November 24, 201211:39 AM
I would have expected you to have a principled problem with right-to-work laws, Dan, since they restrict which sorts of arms-length contracts employers can offer their employees.

Maybe not where public sector unions are concerned, since I can see the argument that they enjoy unfair advantages due to the nature of their employer. But for private sector unions, I can't see what the laissez-faire argument for right-to-work is even supposed to be.
Posts: 4537 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The immense value it brings to the poor and disadvantaged-like its employees? Or those who work in factories to build what they sell?

Don't let frustration with imprecision get you carried away, Dan. *If* WM brings such huge benefits to people-a case you haven't made at all, only asserted-they don't exactly get moral credit for it, given that it's incidental.

Heh, no, my point was that Blayne made the argument for those benefits already. He can't afford to shop anywhere else! That's a compelling argument, all by itself, that Walmart provides a distinct and significant advantage to him. And other poor people like him.

I also think Walmart provides a valuable service to its employees, yes, but you're absolutely right that I didn't make a case for that one. I was just amused that Blayne saw huge value in shopping at Walmart while claiming they were terrible. It's a common example of cognitive dissonance.

quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The immense value it brings to the poor and disadvantaged-like its employees? Or those who work in factories to build what they sell?

Don't let frustration with imprecision get you carried away, Dan. *If* WM brings such huge benefits to people-a case you haven't made at all, only asserted-they don't exactly get moral credit for it, given that it's incidental.

Heh, no, my point was that Blayne made the argument for those benefits already. He can't afford to shop anywhere else! That's a compelling argument, all by itself, that Walmart provides a distinct and significant advantage to him. And other poor people like him.

I also think Walmart provides a valuable service to its employees, yes, but you're absolutely right that I didn't make a case for that one. I was just amused that Blayne saw huge value in shopping at Walmart while claiming they were terrible. It's a common example of cognitive dissonance.

Sorry if all this still wasn't clear post-edit.

I noticed that dissonance too Dan, I was just too tired at the time to describe it.

People often forget that for all their ranting and railing against Walmart, those people still shop there...
Posts: 14282 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |

I food shop at Wal-Mart because their food is less expensive...for the exact same items at big brand super markets...and the convenience of having a large selection of nonfood goods at cheap prices.
Posts: 5467 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |

Blayne Bradley
unregistered

posted November 24, 201207:31 PM
Technically Maxi is even cheaper than Walmart, but that's an extra minute of walking; I personally consider the price difference to be a sort of "Exercise Tax" though it depends, although primarily I only buy food. The only non food purchase I made was for a 10$ rice cooker (because my sushi rice kept getting burnt in a pot) and a pair of new boxers and a shirt.

I only moved to the area *recently*, while in Quebec Walmart doesn't seem to be innately better behaved it *is* however under closer scrutiny and isn't quite the same store as it is State side.
IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't shop there. But, then, I think the proliferation of cheap, disposable, completely unnecessary goods -- the kind of stuff Blayne buys at WalMart -- is a bad thing, not something to be lauded.

I shop there for the groceries. So much cheaper than going to any other grocery store.

What goods would those be? The clothes are the only thing i can think of that would fit your description?
Posts: 3132 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |

quote:Technically Maxi is even cheaper than Walmart, but that's an extra minute of walking;

You hate wal-mart enough to call america a third-world-dictatorship-esque condition for its workers here in present circumstances, but your slacktivism ends literally at the 'inconvenience' of having to walk literally an, a, one, (1), extra minute to a place that has cheaper food.
Posts: 14438 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |

Another might be that a state doesn't have the power to repeal the NLRA, and they see RTW as the only viable way to circumvent it.

As Destineer alluded to, it's not a principled position. It's still, at base, a market restriction. But they see it as less corrosive than following the prevailing law of the land (the NLRA) re: unions.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |

quote:Another might be that a state doesn't have the power to repeal the NLRA, and they see RTW as the only viable way to circumvent it.

And they would genuinely propose that this is a laissez-faire argument, as opposed to (at best) minarchist argument?

Like it is literally an argument wherein laissez-faire is asserting how a rule diametrically opposed to free association is okay, because free association for the workers is less important than using them as a sacrificial lamb to fight the terrible horrible woes inflicted on our poor sweet corporations and waltons by the NLRA.

I guess you're right that it isn't a principled position, unless the principle is how easily the dominant thinktanked goals of free-market types can be bought by the uppers
Posts: 14438 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |

quote:Another might be that a state doesn't have the power to repeal the NLRA, and they see RTW as the only viable way to circumvent it.

And they would genuinely propose that this is a laissez-faire argument, as opposed to (at best) minarchist argument?

Like it is literally an argument wherein laissez-faire is asserting how a rule diametrically opposed to free association is okay, because free association for the workers is less important than using them as a sacrificial lamb to fight the terrible horrible woes inflicted on our poor sweet corporations and waltons by the NLRA.

I guess you're right that it isn't a principled position, unless the principle is how easily the dominant thinktanked goals of free-market types can be bought by the uppers

Huh? The NLRA includes lots of blatant restrictions of freedom, and they all revolve around unions. Like the aforementioned illegality of firing your workers when they refuse to work.

The concept of RTW has a core flaw in that it still restricts freedom, just in a different way, but anyone pretending that RTW is more restrictive of freedom is going to need to give a coherent argument to that effect. Not just some insipid mockery.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |

posted November 25, 201201:35 AM
Anyone pretending that NLRA is more restrictive of freedom is going to need to give a coherent argument to that effect. Not just some insipid mockery.

I suppose it will rely on traducing the issue to how the NLRA is a greater restriction of freedom if we oversimplify the issue to the point where both "total number of unionized and potentially unionized workers" and "corporations and private large-scale employers" are made to be equivalent value-wise, at a 1 for 1 level.
Posts: 14438 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |

Also, I didn't say the NLRA was more restrictive, Sam. I suspect it is, but I'm open to the possibility that it's not.

But you and Tom seem utterly convinced, so I figured some sort of actual argument to that effect might be in order. If not... okay then. I guess we're done?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |

quote:Also, I didn't say the NLRA was more restrictive, Sam. I suspect it is, but I'm open to the possibility that it's not.

In what respect?

Certainly there are abuses and inefficiencies in any system, and unions are no exception-and as their power grows in a given industry, so does the likelihood of trouble it seems to me.

But I think there's a reason that nationwide, particularly throughout the south, the biggest and most meaningful support for various RTW legislation and attitudes has come not from widespread public support but much more top-down sorts of ideals. Or are we to believe that industrialists and corporations support such things out of a sense of universal fairness and the freedoms of everyone-rather than their own bottom line?
Posts: 16553 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |

quote:There is no other recourse however to resolve the issue of workers rights

Now there's an interesting argument. Have you read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"?

In a somewhat similar vein, one might say that there is no recourse other than blowing up clinics to resolve the issue of fetus rights; no recourse other than lynching to resolve the issue of white people's rights; no recourse other than terrorism to resolve the issue of Islamic rights...

In short, what you are actually saying is that you think the issue of workers' rights is so important that you're willing to resort to violence to get your way, or at any rate you're willing to have other people resort to violence for you. Very well, I'm not going to say that violence is always wrong, but then how can you complain if the other side also uses violence? "It's a great pity the other side has more people with guns and truncheons than we do". It sure is! That's the problem with resorting to violence, somehow it doesn't actually respect the justice of anyone's cause.

Your real problem with the American police is that they're not on your side, and they are able to beat up the people who are. If they were using tear gas on protesters outside an abortion clinic you'd be full of the rule of law and the need for peaceful protesting, not riots.

posted November 25, 201204:08 AM
additional eaten detail: the right to work restrictions represent the greater restriction on free association because of the staggering quantity of the workforce it affects directly or indirectly in terms of employment compacts and the overall social power or bargaining capacity that various levels of the workplace have or can employ. Without fail, the right to free association means unions, unions, unions. Only through differential pressures which "conveniently" inspire some to protect employer rights at the specific expense of the right to free association among the labor force, can you dampen unions. Without a strictly anti-union governmental apparatus taking away specific forms of free association, you have unions. Doesn't matter if you get rid of the wagner act (the ostensible pro-free-markets argument in favor of RTW states), as once the prohibitions on specific closed-shop union methods are gone, you just get more and more unions in more and more industries. Libertarians in favor of RTW states are baldly hypocritical OR completely ignorant of the disconnect between a right to free association and RTW laws. Or they're not really libertarian, they're just playing the squint-real-hard game.
Posts: 14438 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |

posted November 25, 201205:25 AM
It's sort of funny to see you appropriating the "free association" term to argue against RTW, Sam.

Just to clarify, though: RTW states don't ban unions, they ban contracts between unions and employers that would compel all employees to join the union. You can make the argument that this in effect bans unions, but that only seems to make sense if you're saying unions aren't broadly appealing enough to sustain membership without that compulsion... which seems to run counter to the whole "right to free association means unions, unions, unions" thing.

Now, admittedly, unions and corporations (if you cut away all the special privileges they both get, most of which I certainly do object to on principle) ought to have the right to make whatever contracts they want, and thus hire/not hire people based on those contracts. But then, they also ought to have the right to fire people for not working, so... shrug.

Yes, RTW laws get in the way of certain kinds of contracts between unions and corporations. So in a substantially more free market, I can see the argument that RTW laws are hindering free association.

But given that we don't have a free market, and that we're going to have lots of laws and restrictions on this stuff for a long time to come... I'll admit that it seems more valuable to me to do what we can to promote free association for individuals, even if that restricts some free association options for collectives. I care less about collectives than I do individuals.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |

posted November 25, 201210:56 AM
Unions are a natural free market solution to corporations attempting to suppress wages; in an economic climate where you would support the existence of monopolies so to must one support unions as their natural predator; with the state not interfering with either (since unions are traditionally suppressed by the state).

quote:You hate wal-mart enough to call america a third-world-dictatorship-esque condition for its workers here in present circumstances, but your slacktivism ends literally at the 'inconvenience' of having to walk literally an, a, one, (1), extra minute to a place that has cheaper food.

I live in a predominantly social democratic province, your labour woes aren't entirely applicable in Quebec. That and I'm not a hipster, I do have the individual right and obligation to act in my rational best interest, sometimes that means walker a little further and sometimes it doesn't simple as that, my personal life is not your business.
IP: Logged |

posted November 25, 201211:30 AM
Blayne, you are the one who put it out there-and no one had to go dredging other threads or memories of threads to apply it either, you mentioned these things *here* in a discussion where you've spoken about the morality of Wal Mart and the possibility of unionized violence. If one or more of these factors was missing, I think you might be right, but in this context it seems pretty fair game.
Posts: 16553 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |

posted November 25, 201201:00 PM
Particularly since one of the reasons Wal-Mart HAS goods so cheaply is they pay their people so little.
Posts: 15033 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |

Blayne Bradley
unregistered

posted November 25, 201201:27 PM
I'm critical of large exploitive corporations in general, and generally don't subscribe to the "voting with your wallet" arguments as fallacious. Walmart just happens to be topical; however what you say isn't true, they could afford to pay their employees a living wage and it would only increase prices by 1%.

posted November 25, 201202:13 PM
Why on Earth would the vote with wallet argument be fallacious? The entire existence of Wal Mart hinges on people purchasing goods and services from them-whatever they may do that anyone finds objectionable is possible because of that.
Posts: 16553 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |

posted November 25, 201205:53 PM
He probably means, for the same reason that your vote doesn't make a difference. And I'd say he's probably correct. If one person's purchases made a difference in the big scheme of things, I'd feel a very strong obligation to become a vegetarian.
Posts: 4537 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |

quote: I do have the individual right and obligation to act in my rational best interest, sometimes that means walker a little further and sometimes it doesn't simple as that, my personal life is not your business.

Blayne, you talked about your personal life, offered it directly relevant to the subject of your thread, and then you just want to close it off and say "hey, these things I have been talking about here in this thread aren't your busines." What do we do, ask that it be stricken from the record? Or are you inventing a special rule that says "I get to talk about things, and then decide the only ways in which they are allowed to be used"

Nope!

So, moving on.

"Rational best interest" is not contested at all. The issue is that you are beyond parody. If you weren't going to use wal-mart as such an example of a terrible company and a locus for calling this american labor conflict akin to a third world dictatorship in any regard, who would really care that you still shop at wal-mart? Pretty much nobody. Especially not me. I am perfectly happy with people shopping at wal-mart if they feel they need to.

But you call wal-mart 'terrible' and offer pronouncements against it, and then you contrast and hypocrifinate™ your internet righteousness with 'Well I still shop there because this place with cheaper food is a minute further away.'

Oh, wah. It is the clearest possible way to demonstrate that your slactivism about wal-mart is not something you give any effort literally even a minute to beyond just using the issue to pontificate socioeconomic righteousness in text on the internet. Dan is right to point out your hypocrisy. You're like this guy I know who complains about illegal immigrants and wants them all deported, then hires an illegal to mow his lawn because he's literally just a dollar twenty cheaper an hour. Because rational self-interest, right?
Posts: 14438 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |